| Revision as of 18:34, 7 September 2007 editJeh (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers19,611 edits →Xinoehpoel: tag for improvement, don't delete. At least not for a while.← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:37, 7 September 2007 edit undoEpbr123 (talk | contribs)291,700 editsm →XinoehpoelNext edit → | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
| ****Plenty of time has been given to find sources. Tagging will achieve nothing. ] 18:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC) | ****Plenty of time has been given to find sources. Tagging will achieve nothing. ] 18:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *****You can't know that until you've tried it. Which you did not. It seems to me, based on ], that you are at the very least very strongly encouraged ("should") to try tagging first. (And that '''is''' an official "policy" page.) You didn't. AfD is not supposed to be your first response when you see a page that ''you'' think can't be improved. If no improvements are forthcoming after a few months, then it may be time for an AfD. ] 18:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC) | *****You can't know that until you've tried it. Which you did not. It seems to me, based on ], that you are at the very least very strongly encouraged ("should") to try tagging first. (And that '''is''' an official "policy" page.) You didn't. AfD is not supposed to be your first response when you see a page that ''you'' think can't be improved. If no improvements are forthcoming after a few months, then it may be time for an AfD. ] 18:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ******I've searched the internet and I can't find any sources. It has to go. ] 18:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 18:37, 7 September 2007
Xinoehpoel
Non-notable Usenet personality. Epbr123 12:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- GarbageCollection - 12:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Weak delete one of the very few things that happened on Usenet that actually made the news (and the New York Times!) but it never got past a brief "quirky news" story, especially at a time when the press had much bigger fish to fry. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Epbr123's recent AFDs of nine Usenet personalities listed on the Notable Usenet personalities page, and of that page as well, seems to be contrary to the multiple deletion procedure. The purpose of that procedure is to allow reviewers to see and evaluate the collection of AFDs as a whole. That is not possible here because Epbr123 listed all of these AFDs separately. We therefore cannot have proper context for this discussion. Jeh 16:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- The snowball deletes at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ed Conrad show why it would have been inappropriate to nominate them all together. Besides, its only a recommendation, not policy. Epbr123 16:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Epbr123 16:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per Jeh, and per WP:POINT. --Cheeser1 18:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- I urge the closer of this discussion to consider carefully the reasoning behind this persons !vote. Epbr123 18:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- I urge the closer of this discussion to consider carefully the proposer's motives in not following recommended procedure, not excepting "For problems that do not require deletion, including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, pages needing redirects, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately." Jeh 18:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Plenty of time has been given to find sources. Tagging will achieve nothing. Epbr123 18:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- You can't know that until you've tried it. Which you did not. It seems to me, based on alternatives to deletion, that you are at the very least very strongly encouraged ("should") to try tagging first. (And that is an official "policy" page.) You didn't. AfD is not supposed to be your first response when you see a page that you think can't be improved. If no improvements are forthcoming after a few months, then it may be time for an AfD. Jeh 18:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- I've searched the internet and I can't find any sources. It has to go. Epbr123 18:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- You can't know that until you've tried it. Which you did not. It seems to me, based on alternatives to deletion, that you are at the very least very strongly encouraged ("should") to try tagging first. (And that is an official "policy" page.) You didn't. AfD is not supposed to be your first response when you see a page that you think can't be improved. If no improvements are forthcoming after a few months, then it may be time for an AfD. Jeh 18:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Plenty of time has been given to find sources. Tagging will achieve nothing. Epbr123 18:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- I urge the closer of this discussion to consider carefully the proposer's motives in not following recommended procedure, not excepting "For problems that do not require deletion, including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, pages needing redirects, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately." Jeh 18:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- I urge the closer of this discussion to consider carefully the reasoning behind this persons !vote. Epbr123 18:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)